OPUS 4 Latest Documents RSS FeedLatest documentshttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/index/index/
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:38 +0200Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:38 +0200Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10 : [10th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, October 13 - 15, 2005, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin] Volume 2http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30687
workingpaperhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30687Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:38 +0200Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10 : [10th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, October 13 - 15, 2005, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin] Volume 1http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30686
workingpaperhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30686Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:13 +0200Papers in Bantu grammar and descriptionhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30685
The collection of papers in this volume presents results of a collaborative project between the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, the Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS) in Berlin, and the University of Leiden. All three institutions have a strong interest in the linguistics of Bantu languages, and in 2003 decided to set up a network to compare results and to provide a platform for on-going discussion of different topics on which their research interests converged. The project received funding from the British Academy International Networks Programme, and from 2003 to 2006 seven meetings were held at the institutions involved under the title Bantu Grammar: Description and Theory, indicating the shared belief that current research in Bantu is best served by combining the description of new data with theoretically informed analysis. During the life-time of the network, and partly in conjunction with it, larger externally funded Bantu research projects have been set up at all institutions: projects on word-order and morphological marking and on phrasal phonology in Leiden, on pronominal reference, agreement and clitics in Romance and Bantu at SOAS, and on focus in Southern Bantu languages at ZAS. The papers in this volume provide a sampling of the work developed within the network and show, or so we think, how fruitful the sharing of ideas over the last three years has been. While the current British Academy-funded network is coming to an end in 2006, we hope that the cooperative structures we have established will continue to develop - and be expanded - in the future, providing many future opportunities to exchange findings and ideas about Bantu linguistics.workingpaperhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30685Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:09:54 +0200Acta Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Ostraviensis / Studia Germanisticahttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/33792
Die Zeitschrift "Acta Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Ostraviensis / Studia Germanistica" knüpft an den vom Lehrstuhl für Germanistik in den Jahren 2006 und 2007 herausgegebenen Sammelband an. Als Zeitschrift ist "Studia Germanistica" im Jahre 2008 erschienen, ab 2009 wird sie zwei Mal jährlich herausgegeben. Seit dem Beginn der Herausgabe von "Studia Germanistica" haben sich alle Beiträge einem unabhängigen Rezensionsverfahren unterzogen. Mitglieder des Rezensentenrates sind namhafte, an tschechischen sowie ausländischen Universitäten wirkende Germanisten.
In der Zeitschrift "Studia Germanistica" werden Forschungsergebnisse zu aktuellen Themen auf dem Gebiet der germanistischen Linguistik, Literaturwissenschaft und DaF-Didaktik publiziert, die den Stand der Forschung in Tschechien sowie im Ausland dokumentieren. Bestandteile der Zeitschrift sind kulturwissenschaftliche Studien und Rezensionen. Alle Beiträge werden in Deutsch – mit einem englischen und tschechischen Resümee publiziert.periodicalhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/33792Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:31:07 +0200Expression of information structure in the Bantu language Northern Sothohttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30688
Sabine Zerbianworkingpaperhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30688Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Papers on information structure in African languageshttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30689
These proceedings, also online available as No. 46 in the ZAS Papers in Linguistics series under http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/index.html?publications_zaspil have resulted from the International Conference "Focus in African languages" held October 6-8, 2005 at the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) in Berlin. The conference was cooperatively organized by the latter, together with the Collaborative Research Center (Sonderforschungsforschungsbereich) 632, generously funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). It was the first conference bringing together colleagues working on this topic from all over the world in such scale.
Even though this volume contains only ten contributions out of the 35 papers presented at the conference, it displays the wide range of approaches, subjects and languages studied in the field of information structure in African languages. The collection thus reflects the synergetic atmosphere of the conference.
In the name of all organizers (Laura Downing, Ines Fiedler, Katharina Hartmann, Brigitte Reineke, Anne Schwarz, Sabine Zerbian, Malte Zimmermann) we would like to take this opportunity to thank the participant reviewers and student assistants for their contributions by which the conference became such a fruitful forum for inspiring and seminal studies in this field. Also special thanks for their effort in copy editing to our research assistants Lars Marstaller and Paul Starzmann.workingpaperhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30689Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Introductionhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30946
The papers in this volume reflect a number of broad themes which have emerged during the meetings of the project as particularly relevant for current Bantu linguistics. [...] The papers show that approaches to Bantu linguistics have also developed in new directions since this foundational work. For example, interaction of phonological phrasing with syntax and word order on the one hand, and with information structure on the other, is more prominent in the papers here than in earlier literature. Quite generally, the role of information structure for the understanding of Bantu syntax has become more important, in particular with respect to the expression of topic and focus, but also for the analysis of more central syntactic concerns such as questions and relative clauses. This, of course, relates to a wider development in linguistic theory to incorporate notions of topic and focus into core syntactic analysis, and it is not surprising that work on Bantu languages and on linguistic theory are closely related to each other in this respect. Another noteworthy development is the increasing interest in variation among Bantu languages which reflects the fact that more empirical evidence from more Bantu languages has become available over the last decade or so. The picture that emerges from this research is that morpho-syntactic variation in Bantu is rich and complex, and that there is strong potential to link this research to research on micro-variation in European (and other) languages, and to the study of morpho-syntactic variables, or parameters, more generally.Laura J. Downing; Lutz Marten; Sabine Zerbianbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30946Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100The Zulu Conjoint/Disjoint Verb Alternation : Focus or Constituency?http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30947
Zulu shows an alternation of conjoint and disjoint (conjunctive/disjunctive, short/long) verb forms. Certain contexts suggest that the distribution of these forms is related to focus. For example, certain adverbial expressions receive a focal interpretation when preceded by a conjoint form but not when preceded by a disjoint form. Similarly, a wh-phrase must be preceded by a conjoint form. This has led some researchers to argue or suggest that the alternation encodes focus directly. This paper examines two different focal hypotheses, one in which a disjoint form encodes focus on the verb and another in which the conjoint form encodes focus on the element following the verb. It is shown that both of these hypotheses are inadequate because certain contexts requiring the conjoint form do not display the predicted focal interpretation. Relativization morphology is argued to also support an analysis independent of focus. It is proposed that the alternation is regulated entirely by the position of the verb within the surface constituencies first proposed in Van der Spuy (1993) and that the associated focal interpretations are the result of a range of interpretations permitted within the different constituencies. Elements remaining within the relevant constituent are nontopical, and focus is one of a range of interpretations they can receive.Leston Buellbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30947Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Syntactic and phonological phrasing in Bemba Relativeshttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30948
Tone as a distinctive feature used to differentiate not only words but also clause types, is a characteristic feature of Bantu languages. In this paper we show that Bemba relatives can be marked with a low tone in place of a segmental relative marker. This low tone strategy of relativization, which imposes a restrictive reading of relatives, manifests a specific phonological phrasing that can be differentiated from that of non-restrictives. The paper shows that the resultant phonological phrasing favours a head-raising analysis of relativization. In this sense, phonology can be shown to inform syntactic analyses.Lisa Cheng; Nancy C. Kulabookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30948Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100The Prosody and Syntax of Focus in Chitumbukahttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30949
This paper presents a sketch of the prosodic, syntactic and morphological means of expressing focus in Chitumbuka, an underdescribed Bantu language of Malawi. The chief prosodic correlate of focus is boundary narrowing – rephrasing conditioned by focus – which is used not only to signal in situ focus but also in syntactic and morphological focus constructions. Of theoretical importance is the fact that rephrasing does not lend culminative prominence to the focused constituent. Although Chitumbuka has culminative sentential stress, its position remains fixed at the right edge of the clause, independent of the position of focus. This makes Chitumbuka a challenge for theories of focus prosody which claim that the focused constituent must have culminative sentential prominence.Laura J. Downingbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30949Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100The Impact of the Morphological Alternation of Subject
Markers on Tense/Aspect : The Case of Swahilihttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30950
Subject markers for the first, second and third person singular in Southern Swahili dialects display morphological variation in that specific forms are chosen with different tense-aspect markers. This paper documents this variation in the different dialects and presents a distributional chart which reveals the symmetric patterns between these subject markers and their corresponding tense-aspect formatives. The study corroborates earlier work in the manifestation of variant morphological tense-aspect formatives of the regional dialects of Swahili by Mazrui (1983).Ahmadi Kipachabookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30950Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Locative Inversion in Otjiherero : More on morphosyntactic variation in Bantuhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30951
This paper discusses locative inversion constructions in Otjiherero against the background of previous work by Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) on the construction in Chichewa, and Demuth and Mmusi (1997) on Setswana and related languages. Locative inversion in Otjiherero is structurally similar to locative inversion in Chichewa and Setswana, but differs from these languages in that there are fewer thematic restrictions on predicates undergoing locative inversion. As Otjiherero has a three-way morphological distinction of locative subject markers, this shows that there is no relation between agreement morphology and thematic restrictions in locative inversion, confirming the result of Demuth and Mmusi. The availability of transitive predicates to participate in locative inversion in Otjiherero furthermore raises questions about the relation between locative inversion, valency, and applicative marking, and these are addressed in the paper, although further research is needed for a full analysis. In terms of function of the locative subject markers, Otjiherero presents, like Chishona, a split system where all markers support locative readings, but where one of them is also used in expletive contexts. In contrast to Chishona, though, this is the class 16, rather than the class 17 marker.Lutz Martenbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30951Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100A Further Look at Conjunctive and Disjunctive Forms in Setswanahttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30952
Setswana distinguishes between conjunctive and disjunctive verb forms in the present positive tense. Creissels (1996) shows that this is also true of a number of other tenses (present negative, future positive and perfect positive). This work is used as a starting point to investigate the conjunctive/disjunctive distinction in my own Setswana data. Further to those presented in Creissels, there is data on the past and past progressive tenses, and environments such as relatives and subordinates. Creissels' analysis is supported by different examples, including those that do not utilise a frame intended to limit boundary effects. There are also examples not within this frame that raise questions about how flexible the conjunctive/disjunctive system can be. This paper is a work in progress.Anna McCormackbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30952Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Linear Order Constraints on Split NPs in Chichewahttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30953
This paper focuses on restrictions on the ordering of internal constituents of noun phrases in Chichewa, especially when those constituents are discontinuous. The motivation for discontinuity of the NP constituents will be given, together with discussion of constructions that can be subsumed under this rubric but that do not really involve discontinuity in the canonical sense. These are constructions where a topic NP in a left periphery position is either linked anaphorically with a modifier "remnant" or semantically with its hyponym in post-verbal position. According to Guthrie's classification of Bantu languages, Chichewa is placed in zone N unit N31. It is regarded as a dialect of Nyanja, classified as belonging to unit N30 (Guthrie 1967-71).Sam Mchombobookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30953Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Agreement Properties and Word Order in Comparative Bantuhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30954
Agreement is traditionally viewed as a cross-referencing device for core arguments such as subjects and (primary) objects.1 In this paper, I discuss data from Bantu languages that lead to a radical departure from this generally accepted position: agreement in a subset of Bantu languages cross-references a (sentential) topic rather than the subject. The crucial evidence for topic agreement comes from a construction known as subject-object (S-O) reversal, where the fronted patient agrees with what has uniformly been taken to be a `subject marker'. The correct analysis of S-O reversal as a topic construction with `topic agreement' explains a range of known facts in the languages in question. Furthermore, synchronic variation across Bantu in the presence/absence of S-O reversal and in the properties of the (topic/subject) agreement marker suggests a diachronic path from topic to subject marking. The systematic variation and covariation in the syntax of Bantu languages and the historical picture that it offers would be missed altogether if we continue to reject the idea that the notion of topic can be deeply grammaticized in the form of agreement.Yukiko Morimotobookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30954Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Focus in Bantu : verbal morphology and functionhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30955
Although verb forms encoding focus were recorded in various Bantu languages during the twentieth century it was not until the late 1970's that they became the centre of serious attention, starting with the work of Hyman and Watters. In the last decade this attention has grown. While focus can be expressed variously, this paper concentrates largely on its morphological, partly on its tonal expression. On the basis of morphological and tonal behaviour, it identifies four blocks of languages, representing less than a third of all Bantu languages: those with metatony, those with a binary constituent contrast between verb ("disjunctive") and post-verbal ("conjunctive") focus, those with a three-way contrast, and those with verb initial /ni-/. Following Güldemann's lead, it is shown there is a fairly widespread grammaticalisation path whereby focus markers may come to encode progressive aspect, then present tense. Many Bantu languages today have a pre-stem morpheme /a/ 'non-past' and it is hypothesized that many of these /a/, which are otherwise hard to explain historically, may derive from an older focus marker.Derek Nursebookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30955Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Parameters of variation & complement licensing in Bantuhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30956
In this paper I argue that the syntax of Eastern Bantu does not make reference to the notion 'syntactic object'. That is, there is no linguistic category of objects that is the target of syntactic rules in Eastern Bantu languages. Instead I propose that syntactic rules broadly distinguish complements and adjuncts as well as category type of complement or adjunct. I argue that Bantu languages are typologically special in that (a) the verb complement structure can be expanded by the valency increasing applicative suffix; and (b) that the class of adjuncts can be expanded through verb concord licensing. Because of these properties, Bantu languages have a much-expanded notion of 'complement' and 'adjunct'. Namely, complements consist of (a) inherent complements (subcategorised by the lexical verb), and (b) derived complements (licensed by the applicative suffix). Adjuncts consist of (a) non-subcategorised modifying constituents in the usual sense and (b) phrases that are licensed by verb concord (i.e. Topics in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987)). I propose that most the differences in the licensing of objects in Bantu are due to two causes: (a) the unusual split in the composition of complements and adjuncts and (b) a set of typological parameter settings.Nhlanhla Thwalabookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30956Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100The disjoint verb form and an empty Immediate After Verb position in Makhuwahttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30957
The Bantu language Makhuwa makes a distinction between cojoint and disjoint verb forms. Two hypotheses are made from generalisations on the distribution of the conjoint and disjoint verb forms in Makhuwa. 1) The verb appears in its conjoint form when a focal element occupies the Immediate After Verb (IAV) position; 2) the verb appears in its disjoint form when the IAV position is empty. A syntactic analysis is provided that accounts for these hypotheses if the IAV position is defined in terms of structural rather than linear adjacency between two heads in a direct c-command relation.
In the syntactic analysis two focus projections are proposed: one under TP (Ndayiragije 1999) hosting the disjoint morpheme and one under vP, to whose specifier focal elements move. Non-focal elements remain in-situ. This analysis accounts both for the strong adjacency requirement of a cojoint verb form and its focal object and for the empty IAV position that requires a verb to appear in its disjoint form.Jenneke van der Walbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30957Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Questions in Northern Sothohttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30958
This article gives an overview of the marking of polar and constituent questions in Northern Sotho, a Bantu language of South Africa. It thereby provides a contribution to the typological investigation of sentence types in the world’s languages. As will be shown, Northern Sotho follows cross-linguistic tendencies in marking interrogative sentences: It uses intonation as main indicator in polar questions and question words as main indicator in constituent questions. Nevertheless, it also shows interesting language-specific variation, e.g. with respect to the location of raised intonation in polar questions, the presence of two pragmatically distinct question particles in polar questions, or a split in the formation of constituent questions based on the grammatical function of the questioned constituent.Sabine Zerbianbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30958Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Cognitive representation and the relevance of on-line constructionshttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30959
In this paper, focusing on the relevance-theoretic view of cognition, I discuss the idea that what is communicated through an utterance is not merely an explicature upon which implicature(s) are recovered, but rather a propositional complex that contains both explicit and implicit information. More specifically, I propose that this information is constructed on the fly as the interpreter processes every lexical item in its turn while parsing the utterance in real time, in this way creating a string of ad hoc concepts. While hearing an utterance and incrementally constructing a context, the propositional complex communicated by an utterance is pragmatically narrowed and simultaneously pragmatically broadened in order to incorporate only the set of optimally relevant propositions with respect to a specific point in the interpretation. The narrowing of propositions from the initial context at each stage allows relevant propositions to be carried on to the new level, while their broadening adds to the communicated propositional complex new propositions that are linked to the lexical item that is processed at every step of the interpretation process.Stavros Assimakopoulosbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30959Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100The 'separate performative' account of the German right dislocationhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30960
In my paper, I show that the so-called German right dislocation actually comprises two distinct constructions, which I label 'right dislocation proper' and 'afterthought'. These differ in their prosodic and syntactic properties, as well as in their discourse functions. The paper is primarily concerned with the right dislocation proper (RD). I present a semantic analysis of RD based on the 'separate performative' account of Potts (2004, 2005) and Portner (forthc.). This analysis allows a description of the semantic contribution of RD to its host sentence, as well as explaining certain semantic constraints on the kind of NP in the RD construction.Maria Averintseva-Klischbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30960Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Complex focus versus double focus : investigations on multiple focus interpretations in Hungarianhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30961
The main aim of this paper is to point out several problems with the semantic analysis of Hungarian focus interpretation and 'only'. For current semantic analyses the interpretation of Hungarian identificational/exhaustive focus and 'only' is problematic, since in classical semantic analyses 'only' is identified with an exhaustivity operator. In this paper I will discuss multiple focus constructions and question-answer pairs in Hungarian to show that such a view cannot be applied to Hungarian exhaustive focus. Next to this I will discuss possible interpretations of Hungarian sentences containing multiple prosodic foci: complex focus versus double focus. My claim is that in order to interpret multiple focus (in Hungarian) we have to take into consideration the different intonation patterns, the occurrence of 'only', and the syntactic structure as well.Katalin von Baloghbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30961Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Dog after dog revisitedhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30962
This paper presents a compositional semantic analysis of pluractional adverbial modifiers like 'dog after dog' and 'one dog after the other'. We propose a division of labour according to which much of the semantics is carried by a family of plural operators. The adverbial itself contributes a semantics that we call pseudoreciprocal.Sigrid Beck; Arnim von Stechowbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30962Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Temporal and propositional de se : evidence from Romanian subjunctive moodhttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30963
The paper investigates the interpretation of the Romanian subjunctive B (subjB) mood when it is embedded under the propositional attitude verb crede (believe). SubjB is analyzed as a single package of three distinct presuppositions: temporal de se, dissociation and propositional de se. I show that subjB is the temporal analogue of null PRO in the individual domain: it allows only for a de se reading. Dissociation enables us to show that subjB always takes scope over a negation embedded in a belief report. Propositional de se derives this empirical generalization. The introduction of centered propositions (generalizing centered worlds), together with propositional de se, dissociation and the belief 'introspection' principles, derives the fact that subjB belief reports (unlike their indicative counterparts) are infelicitous with embedded probabil.Adrian Brasoveanubookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30963Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100Bare nominals and optimal inferencehttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30964
In this paper I discuss four type of bare nominal, and note that, in some sense, all of them appear to imply stereotypicality. I consider an account in terms of Bidirectional Optimality Theory: unmarked (bare) forms give rise to unmarked (stereotypical) interpretations. However, it turns out that, while the form of bare numerals is unmarked, the interpretation sometimes is not. I suggest that the crucial notion is not unmarkedness, but optimal inference: unmarked forms give rise to interpretations that are best used for drawing inferences. I propose a revision of Bidirectional Optimality Theory to reflect this.Ariel Cohenbookparthttp://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/30964Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:45:05 +0100